Planning for Cross-LFS/Multi-Architecture 7.x Release

Jim Gifford lfs at
Mon Apr 18 15:25:57 PDT 2005

Randy McMurchy wrote:

>Jim Gifford wrote these words on 04/18/05 16:25 CST:
>>Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>>I mean, using the new method versus the current method, you still
>>>end up with the same exact end product, right?
>>Actually, you get a cleaner toolchain, from my experience with this 
>>process and a much more minimal system if you so desire.
>Please, Jim, for me and I'm sure there are others that want to know
>the same thing, can you explain *in a technical manner* how the
>toolchain could be any "cleaner"?
>I'm thinking byte-for-byte you end up with the same thing, right?
>You can already build a more minimal system, by omitting things
>you know aren't needed and/or removing them after installation, so
>this doesn't play into the picture for me.
>I would like someone to explain the *technical* difference in the
>final binaries. I don't need to know the methodology, just how one
>set of glibc/binutils/gcc and others will differ from ones that are
>created using the old method.
>Thanks in advance, as I know there is some work involved putting
>this information out, but I know I would appreciate it, as I'm sure
>many others would as well.
Randy, from what I have noticed doing cross-build from a pentium 2 to a 
MIPS, the toolchain seems a lot more stable then what I had when I built 
from MIPS to MIPS. It may just be a perception on my part, but I don't 
seem to get a lot of the errors I did before with the same versions. On 
a i686 to i686 build, no there might not be any difference, but on a 
i686 to any_other_arch, there may be a significant difference on the 
chapter 6 build. I saw a small difference in the size. I'm running a 
build right now, and will post the differences once it's completed. 
Probably take around 4 hours.

jim at
lfs at

LFS User # 2577
Registered Linux User # 299986

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list